HomeMy WebLinkAbout091001REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2001
Fire Station - City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Ao
Co
Call Meeting to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes:
Public Hearings:
Case Files #01-066/067 EFH Company representing Metro Cabinets Company
and American Glass and Mirror is requesting variances to permit structure and
driveway setbacks to the property line less than the minimum required, and a
building wall length to height ratio greater than the maximum allowed for the
property located at 5418 Cottonwood Lane.
Case file #01-075 John Teilborg is requesting variances to permit a structure to be
setback less than the minimum required 75 feet from the Ordinary-High-Water
Mark; and a setback less than the minimum required front yard using setback
averaging; and a variance to permit road access less than the minimum required
for the property located at 14358 Rutgers Street.
Case File #01-017 - (continued) Mark Crouse is requesting variances for
impervious surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a
deck on the property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue.
Old Business:
A. Case File #01-068 Lawrence Baird Variance Resolution.
New Business:
Announcements and Correspondence:
Adjournment:
L:\01 files\O I plancomm\01 pcagenda\ag091001.DOC
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2001
1. Call to Order:
Chairman Vonhof called the September 10, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 6:31 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Atwood, Criego, Lemke, Stamson and
Vonhof, Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier, Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman and
Recording Secretary Come Carlson.
2. Roll Call:
Atwood Present
Criego Present
Lemke Present
Stamson Present
Vonhof Present
3. Approval of Minutes:
The Minutes fi:om the August 27, 2001, Planning Commission meeting were approved as
presented.
Commissioner Vonhof read the Public Heating Statement and opened the meeting.
4. Public Hearings:
A. Case Files #01-066/067 EFH Company representing Metro Cabinets
Company and American Glass and Mirror is requesting variances to permit
structure and driveway setbacks to the property line less than the minimum
required, and a building wall length to height ratio greater than the maximum
allowed for the property located at 5418 Cottonwood Lane.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated September 10,
2001, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received an application for variances to allow the construction
of an addition to the existing commercial building on the property located at 5418
Cottonwood Lane, addressed as Units A & B. The applicants are EFH, Co. (contractor),
Metro Cabinets Company (owner), and American Glass & Mirror Company (owner).
The following variances are requested:
1. A variance to permit a structure with a building wall length to height ratio of
6.6:1 rather than the maximum ratio of 4:l.
2. A 7.51-foot variance to permit a 42.49-foot structure setback fi:om a property line
adjoining an arterial road rather than the minimum required 50-feet.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesWIN091001 .doc I
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2001
3. A 3-foot variance to permit a driveway/parking area to be setback 3-feet from a
side property line, rather than the minimum required 6 feet.
In the narrative submitted by the applicants, they are proposing the additions for various
reasons. These include business growth, insufficient space for assembly, product storage,
and the larger equipment and vehicles that require more space to maneuver in and out of
overhead doors, and more area to serve the public.
In 1995, applicant Guy Selinski, American Glass & Mirror, applied for and received a 7-
foot variance to expand the driveway/parking area to within 3-feet of the east lot line,
Unit B. The current ordinance only requires a minimum 6-foot driveway setback and is
the reason for the accompanying 3-foot variance request.
The Planning staff has determined the variance requests for the building setback and
height to length ratio do not meet the nine hardship criteria, since it is a business decision
to expand the existing building due to economic growth and the need for additional space
for storage of materials and production capabilities. The applicant can redesign the
addition to meet the required setback with a 20-foot addition. However, the existing
building already exceeds the maximum ratio of length to height, as the building wall is
18-feet high and 89 feet long (4.9 to 1 ratio). Therefore, the addition would also need to
be redesigned with a minimum 6.6-foot break (4.9 feet plus 1.7 feet). Staff recommended
denial of the first two requests.
In regards to variance request number three, when the existing building was constructed,
the City Code required the overhead loading doors be located in the side yards, because
the side yards do not have enough depth to allow large commercial vehicles to maneuver
through the doors. With the new addition designed to meet setbacks and a break in the
building wall of 6.6 feet this would eliminate the need for the driveway setback variance
as the recessed wall adds another 6.6 feet area for driveway. Staff also recommended
denial of this variance request, as it does not meet the nine hardship criteria.
Comments from the public:
Applicant Guy Selinski, American Glass & Mirror, requested approval of the variances
and explained how he felt staff's proposal would not meet their business growth. They
need wider overhead doors to get larger vehicles indoor for loading. They definitely feel
the need for a 30 foot addition. The setback issue is only for part of the building.
Selinski pointed out how County Road 21 slants. The ratio of building height to length
was not an issue when the building was constructed with the intention to expand.
Mike Whalen, EFH Company, stated they were the original contractors for the building.
Whalen explained why the building was constructed the way it was with the only
expansion towards the back. They need the 30 feet to get the trucks in.
Lemke questioned the width of the overhead door. Whalen responded it is 12 feet now
and will expand to 14 feet.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesWIN091001 .doc 2
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2001
Applicant Tim Simmon, owner of Metro Cabinets, said he has doubled in size since they
have been in the business park. Another concern is safety. The applicants did work with
staff at the time of construction. Simmon explained the runoff problems. The only way
they can expand is north toward County Road 21.
The floor was closed for public comment.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Lemke:
· Staff did a good job putting the report together.
· Believe the City needs to be as friendly as possible to the business so they grow and
flourish.
· Supported all three variance requests.
Criego:
· Questioned applicant why the asphalt has been added around the perimeter of the
structure. Selinski responded it was for additional employee parking.
· Questioned the asphalt on the west side. Simmon responded it was just to get into the
building.
· The asphalt on the northeast side is also for parking. Horsman said the parking meets
current code.
· Questioned staff on the original location of the overhead doors and if the ordinance
changed. Horsman responded it met the code at the time. The new Zoning
Ordinance limits the length to height ratio.
· Was that ordinance for commercial and/or residential? Horsman said it was for
commercial.
· Would love to see the Prior Lake businesses grow in the community.
· Did not have a problem with the height/length ratio nor the 6.6 foot indenture ratio.
· Has a problem with the street variance not being met.
Stamson:
· Questioned staff if there are any practical problems with the 50 foot area. Horsman
responded that no easements are shown on the survey. It appears the addition would
be set back a considerable distance to meet code.
· As far as the 50 foot setback goes, there really isn't a practical reason for 50 feet as a
setback cutoff point. The hardship is the uniqueness by the county road requiring the
50 foot setback.
· The building was constructed prior to the current code with the intention of
expanding. The City revised the codes and made it difficult for the applicant. That is
the uniqueness of the property and not necessarily city-wide.
· The alternative is to move. It would be difficult to relocate in the area. The hardship
is that there is no commercial property.
· Using the 50 foot setback as rationale - the hardship criteria has been met.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesWIN091001 .doc 3
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2001
· Do not have a problem with the other two variances.
· The height/length ratio ordinance in an industrial district should be discussed.
· Pass variances.
Atwood:
· Agreed with Commissioner Stamson. The expansion plans were prior to the rules and
regulations. That is the hardship.
· Not concerned with the setbacks to the buildings on either side.
· Inclined to let it go. It is reasonable.
· Questioned the interior openings. Horsman explained the firewall and separation of
buildings.
Vonhof:
· Concurred with fellow Commissioners.
· Was on the Commission when this building was constructed and can speak on the
rationale for the doors on the side. This is a business park that backs up to a county
road. The concern at the time was having people coming into the community viewing
those buildings. Those two factors create a hardship in the design.
Concurred with Commissioners the building wall in a business park is not as
significant as a residential district.
· The setback from the county road is only 7.5 feet at the maximum point.
· Regarding the streetscape coming into the community, there should be adequate
screening and landscaping.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, DIRECTING STAFF TO
PREPARE A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE VARIANCES REQUESTED BY THE
APPLICANT WITH THE CONDITION REQUIRING THE APPROPRIATE
LANDSCAPE PLAN BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO APPROVAL.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This matter will continue to September 24, 2001.
B. Case file #01-075 John Teilborg is requesting variances to permit a structure
to be setback less than the minimum required 75 feet from the Ordinary-High-
Water Mark; and a setback less than the minimum required front yard using
setback averaging; and a variance to permit road access less than the minimum
required for the property located at 14358 Rutgers Street.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated September 10,
2001, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
The Planning Department received a variance application from John & Lorraine Teilborg
for the construction of a single family dwelling with attached garage to replace an
existing dwelling on the subject lot located at 14358 Rutgers Street. The applicant has
proposed a building plan and site location and requests the following variances:
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN091001 .doc 4
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2001
1. A variance of .5-feet to permit vehicular access to be 907.40 feet rather than
907.9 feet, as required to be not more than 2 feet below the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation.
2. A 4.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 53-feet from the Ordinary
High Water Elevation (OHWM), rather than the minimum setback of 57.5-feet
as required by setback averaging.
3. A 13.5-foot variance to permit a structure setback of 25-feet from the front
property line, rather than minimum setback of 38.5 feet as required by setback
averaging.
The staff believes all of the variance criteria have been met with respect to Variance
number 1) vehicular access elevation, and to Variance number 3) structure setback from
the front lot line. However, regarding Variance number 2) setback to the ordinary high
water mark, a modified building plan will meet a 57.5-foot OHWM setback.
In addition, staff recommends four conditions be met by the applicant prior to building
permit approval and issuance for the subject lot:
1) Submission of a revised survey with a minimum structure setback of 57.5-feet
from the ordinary high water elevation of 904 feet, and depict the minimum
surrounding grade elevation of 908.9 feet within 15 feet of the proposed structure.
2) Year round occupancy of the property be subject to the applicant/owner
submitting an emergency management plan to be approved by the Police Chief
and Fire Chief.
3) All Resolutions adopted by the Commission shall be recorded and proof of
recording be submitted, along with the City Assent Form, to the Planning
Department.
4) The existing garage structure is removed prior to the issuance of occupancy.
The Department of Natural Resources had no comments on this matter.
Stamson questioned the street setback at 25 feet. Horsman responded when redeveloping
a lot can have a varying setback and on even new developments, it can call into setback
averaging. It is required under code not to exceed a maximum of 50 feet.
Criego questioned staff's conditions 2 and 3. Kansier explained the property is in the
flood plain and this has the road access requirement. It is under the State rules and in the
Zoning Ordinance. All approved variances in the flood plain require emergency
management plans. Condition 3 is a City requirement that all Resolutions have to be
recorded.
Horsman explained the Assent Form. It is a standard form.
Lemke questioned the non-conforming lot and the effects of the setback averaging.
Horsman explained the lakeside setbacks.
L:\01 files\O 1 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN091001 .doc 5
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2001
Comments from the public:
John and Lorraine Teilborg said they were not aware of the condition to tear down the
garage. Teilborg gave a brief background on the need for additional space. The
elevation of the property has caused many issues on deciding to add on or build a new
home. The home improvement remodel costs were cumulative and due to the 50% of the
value addition it pretty much put an end to remodel. The number one problem in
rebuilding is the topographical size of the lot. Two sides have water causing major
setbacks. Teilborg also explained the constraints of a difficult lot. They cannot have a
basement or any kind of lower elevation. A petition was submitted supporting the
proposal from all the neighbors but three. They are within the 30% impervious surface
requirement and mentioned his concern for tree removal.
Mary Fedder lives on neighboring lots 55 and 56, supported the proposal and felt it will
enhance the look of the home and increase the value of the surrounding homes.
The floor was closed for public comment.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Criego:
Does not disagree with staff's analysis of the request.
· Looking at the house plans, it looks like one could minimally reduce the house plan
and still keep the lakeside setback.
· Agreed to allow the first and third request.
· Standing firm to deny the second request.
Stamson:
· Concurred with Criego. There is a hardship with the first request.
· The third request - The standard is 25 feet. The reason there is a setback averaging is
not to create a house jetting out drastically in front of the others. The 38 feet was
created by a single home that sits 85 feet back and would not be legal under our
current ordinance. It is unfair to apply that to a new home trying to meet the
ordinance.
The curvature of the street actually eliminates the ability of the house to stick out.
Twenty-five feet is appropriate.
· Agreed with Criego the 4.5 foot variance is due to house design. There is more than
adequate space to build a home on this lot.
· The setback averaging is already being used.
· Applicant can redesign the home and meet the setbacks.
· The retaining wall could be moved.
· Teilborg responded said they considered removal of the retaining wall as an option.
Pat Lynch from the DNR showed him how to do the riprap wall. Assuming they
could remodel was not a concern at that time. The water level or mark was not a
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\0 lpcminutes~lN091001 .doc 6
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2001
concern. Teilborg said they would be glad to move the boulders back and increase
the landscaping. He would like to work with the City.
Seems reasonable.
Opposed to the second variance.
Atwood:
Concurred with Commissioners.
· Given the retaining wall, there is room to adjust.
· There is not hardship to work around the 4.5 foot variance request.
· Agreed with variance approval for requests 1 and 3.
Lemke:
· Agreed the hardship standards had been met for variances 1 and 3.
· Felt the second variance request is an improvement. The house setback is currently
47 feet and is moving back to 53 feet. The ordinance has bounced back and forth
from 75 feet to 50 feet back to 75 feet.
· It effects a small comer of the house. They are beyond the 57 feet.
· Supported the second variance.
Vonhof:
· The challenges of this property are deceptive. It is large in appearance but it is in a
flood plain and the elevations are critical for establishing a footprint.
· The current house is 12 feet from the road. It is a tight curve. The applicant is more
than 50 feet from the lake. Moving the structure back more than twice the distance is
an improvement.
· It is a modest variance. It is in the interest of the City to have the structure further
back and closer to the lake.
· Many homes on the lake are closer than 50 feet. Moving the home back 12 feet from
the curve is more critical.
· The street is not standard. It has less than a 20 foot width.
· Would rather grant the variance on the lake side and still maintain a good distance
from the lake from the 904 than have the structure closer to the roadway.
Open Discussion:
The Commissioners discussed the design and the existing lake views with the following
comments:
· Lake views are not a hardship.
· The setback is really 75 feet. They gained a lot with the setback averaging.
· It is deceptive to look at the size of the lot. The lot is unique.
· The proposed house is huge. It can be modified.
· Staff felt the existing garage is non-conforming. It is too close to the road and the
neighbor's property.
· Horsman explained it could be flood-proofed and moved from the existing location.
L:\01 files\01plancomm\01pcminutesWIN091001.doc 7
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2001
Teilborg said after several discussions with staff he was never told of the garage removal.
He feels the home will be upper bracket and one of the nicer homes on the lake. Teilborg
explained the views and the resale value. The lake is always about views. They have
already cut out over 468 square feet out of the proposal.
Stamson:
· Questioned staff on the garage condition.
condition to remove the garage.
Horsman said it is a recommendation as a
The Planning Commission considered variance requests 1 and 3:
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE VARIANCES 1 AND
3 WITH THE CONDITIONS 1 THROUGH 3 OF THE STAFF REPORT.
There was a brief discussion on the conditions. Lemke and Atwood agreed to amend
their Motion as follows:
MOTION BY LEMKE, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE VARIANCES 1 AND
3 INCLUDING ALL FOUR CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
Discussion:
A decision must be made with the garage condition.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Discussion on the second variance request: (A 4.5 foot variance to permit a structure
setback of 53 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark, rather than the minimum setback
of 57.5 feet as required by setback averaging.
Comments from the Commissioners:
· The applicant is proposing everything positive.
· This can be easily redesigned. There is more than adequate space.
· Agreed with Stamson. It can be realigned and avoid the impacts.
· It can be a better fit.
· The applicant built the retaining wall when the setback was 50 feet from the lake.
· The 50 foot setback was 6 months with public outcry. The applicant should be able
to meet the setbacks.
· Don't consider where this structure is. There has been a long-standing philosophy
about going into the setbacks and the Commission used rationale to what makes sense
for applying variances. This is a reduction. This is also a redevelopment of a site.
There are constraints.
· It is easy to want this to happen, the fact of the matter is that there are no hardships.
The house is proposed 70 by 90 feet. It has to adapt. There cannot be a financial
hardship. The fact is the lot is 33,000 square feet. Meet the setbacks.
· The hardship is created by the size of the house.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN091001 .doc 8
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2001
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, TO DENY THE 4.5 FOOT
VARIANCE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Stamson and Atwood, nays by Vonhof and Lemke.
MOTION CARRIED.
Horsman explained the appeal process.
C. Case File #01-017 - (continued) Mark Crouse is requesting variances for
impervious surface and the ordinary high water mark for the construction of a deck
on the property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated September 10,
2001, on file in the office of the Planning Department.
On June 25, 2001, the Planning Department held a public hearing for two variance
requests from Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) on the property located at 15507
Calmut Avenue. The requests included a variance from the ordinary high water mark for
a deck setback, and a variance to the maximum impervious surface area. The Planning
Commission denied the deck variance at the public hearing (Resolution #01-008PC).
The Commission continued the public hearing regarding the impervious surface variance
to allow the applicant more time to revise and reduce the request because the
Commission did not believe the applicant provided proof of hardship for the 4,422 square
feet or 57.5% of the total lot area.
At the public heating held on July 23, 2001, the Planning Commission again continued
the public hearing to August 27, 2001, to allow the applicant time to provide new
information that proved he owned the old railroad right-of-way, adjacent to the front lot
line of the subject property. The applicant is requesting to be able to add this green area,
not covered by Calmut Avenue with public street and utility easements, to his subject lot
area to help reduce the percentage of impervious surface coverage. In addition, the
Planning Commission directed the applicant to reduce his variance request for an
impervious surface coverage area in the 30-percentile range.
On August 27, 2001, the applicant requested an additional continuance of the hearing.
The Planning Commission continued this item to the regular meeting on September 10,
2001. As of the date of this report, September 4, 2001, no additional information has
been submitted.
The original variance request is as follows:
i)
A 2,115 square foot variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 4,422
square feet (57.5%) rather than the permitted maximum area of 2,307 square feet
(30%).
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesWIN091001 .doc 9
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2001
A follow-up inspection of the subject property was conducted on August 6, 2001. The
deck and concrete impervious surface coverage area remain, as documented on the
original certificate of survey. In addition, a metal frame with tarp boat shelter has been
installed on the south side of the property. To staff's knowledge, this shelter was not
present on site, nor included on the original impervious surface calculations as surveyed
on December 6, 2000. Also, two docks were present with a pontoon boat tied to one
dock, and a boatlift installed next to the second dock.
According to Patrick Lynch, Hydrologist, from the Department of Natural Resources, the
conditions for approval of the Windsong Marina adjacent to the subject property, allowed
only 1 dock for fishing, swimming, and daytime docking on the appellants lot because a
boat slip at the marina was deeded to the subject property. Another condition required
that no boat lifts or swim rafts be permitted off the shoreline of the property.
The staff recommended the Planning Commission deny the applicants variance request of
57.5% impervious surface area as the applicant did not meet all of the hardship criteria,
and require the property to meet an impervious surface area the Planning Commission
deems appropriate under the circumstances. As a condition staff recommended the
applicant provides a revised survey to depict the required impervious surface area as
adopted by the Planning Commission and the applicant shall submit a driveway permit
application to the City to verify the conditions have been met.
Comments from the public:
Bryce Huemoeller, representing the applicant who is out of town, spoke on the applied
standards for undue hardship; the applicant's overall conceptual proposal; reasons he
believes the proposal is a reasonable use and alternatives. It is their view that a hardship
exists with the reasonableness of the use. Crouse's proposal is to reduce the size of the
driveway to the 24 feet allowed by the ordinance. He would remove the concrete on the
north side of the house and the sidewalk on the southwest, bringing his impervious
surface down to about 44%. Crouse also proposes either to construct alternative
infiltration devices on the property and/or obtain drainage easements over the
neighboring property thereby reducing the runoff. He would also provide the plans and
engineers' certification indicating it meets the impervious surface conditions.
Huemoeller felt the property is a leftover parcel from the Windsong and other adjacent
developments. The house alone is at 29% impervious surface. He needs a driveway to
meet the ordinance. A letter submitted from the contractor indicates the patio and
retaining wall were constructed for stability. The patio is an essential component to this
house and has to stay in its existing condition. The house is consistent with other homes
in the neighborhood. Mr. Crouse's proposal to add the runoffwill meet the DNR and
City Ordinances.
Huemoeller felt the property is unique as it is located next to the common area for the
Windsong development. It has to be researched to find out if the infiltration can be
worked out with the common area of the Windsong development. The engineers'
L:\01 fi les\01 pl ancornm\01 pcrninutes'uMN091001 .doc 1 0
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2001
calculations will take around 30 to 60 days. They felt it would be reasonable for the
Planning Commission to approve a variance with the condition the 1,000 square feet of
impervious surface be removed and expand the drainage area or provide for infiltration
improvements to approximate the runoff characteristics for 30% impervious surface, or
continue the matter for another 30 days.
Huemoeller explained proposed infiltration methods. Reduce impervious surface, add
physical changes and redirect runoff.
Criego:
Why was the sidewalk not removed on the lake side? It seems like a sidewalk going
nowhere. Huemoeller said he did not have the answer but Crouse does have an idea to
reduce it.
Atwood:
· Who owns the railroad bed? Huemoeller said it was vacated, the City owns it now.
Horsman responded the prior owner still owns the right of way. Huemoeller stated
55% of it is occupied by the City street, and went on to say the issue is that the
property is a small lot with a lot of impervious surface; some of it has to stay. What
do you do? Cut down the impervious surface, add some mechanical features that
store or infiltrate water and then try to route it somewhere else so it won't run to the
lake. Huemoeller feels these are reasonable ways to deal with a tough problem on a
small lot.
Lemke:
· How would there be continual maintenance of the mechanical systems so they remain
effective? Huemoeller responded if the applicant did receive the variance it would
have to be recorded. City inspection could be part of a condition. Then the condition
would be of record so if anyone else buys the property it is of record to continue the
maintenance.
The floor was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
Stamson:
· Brought up reasonable use and the standard. Huemoeller did a great job pointing out
the two extremes.
· Reasonable use in my mind is - Does the applicant have reasonable use? In this case,
the home was built without the patio. It was planned without a patio. The applicant
definitely has reasonable use.
· The history of the home was that the impervious surface was added later. Actually in
defiance of earlier variances requiring the property maintain 30%. That was recorded
when the home was built.
· One of the impact issues is the patio. At this time the Commission has not had time
to review the information Huemoeller presented.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01pcminuteshMN091001 .doc 11
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2001
· An ordinance change may be necessary.
· More time is needed.
· Overall opposed to the request.
A variance process is not the way to do this.
Atwood:
· Agreed with Stamson. It should not be addressed as a variance proposal.
· Interested in Huemoeller's letter from the contractor who did the patio calling it the
lateral support for the retaining wall and house. Have the City Engineers addressed
the issue? Horsman responded they were not aware of any engineers taking the
project on other than what the applicant has claimed.
· Find that very interesting.
· The Staff Report states removing 57%. There is a discrepancy in the figures.
Huemoeller stated it is 44% without removing the patio.
· Kansier responded they would reduce it by 1,000 square feet to 44%. The Staff
Report numbers are significantly higher. They are double from what Huemoeller
proposes.
Horsman said he took more out of the driveway than the applicant is proposing.
Lemke:
· The City permitted construction with thc home and driveway over 30% impervious
surface.
· There is an ordinance stating one must have a driveway. We can't hold that against
him as far as impervious surface.
· Even with the normal driveway it would be over the 30% with conditions, the survey
and proposal do not exceed 30%.
· Kansier responded the original permit was issued with the condition the house and
driveway do not exceed 30%. The driveway was probably narrower.
· Questioned if thc ordinance specifies a specific driveway size. Horsman stated the
maximum driveway is 24 feet wide at the curb.
· Not sure about taking the contractor's word at face value. You need a driveway.
· The only issue for me is the sidewalk. The existing sidewalks are over 3 feet now.
· Agreed more time is needed to look at the issue.
· The idea of using mechanical devises is intriguing. As a policy issue for the City, this
is not the place to address it.
Criego:
· The applicant has come up with a creative way to solve the problems. It is difficult.
· What is a realistic percentage? Is the filtration system proposed one that should be
accepted.
· Has a different view other than it is a policy issue. It is a variance issue. Does the
Commission want to undertake the endeavor as a variance issue rather than a policy
issue? Two different things.
· Based on what has been proposed, the structure at 40% to 44% impervious surface is
reasonable.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminuteshMN091001 .doc 12
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2001
· City Council member Mike Gundlach said anything like this in an ordinance has been
going through Watershed District review seeking their approval and permits.
Granting the variance tonight would really require City Council approval as well as
Watershed approval going above and beyond what the Commission's role would be.
· Based on Gundlach's information, propose allowing a variance somewhere in the
range of 40% to 44% impervious surface and go from there. Pick a number and have
the applicant fix the problem. He needs impervious surface.
Vonhof:
· This proposal cannot be looked at here.
going to be a fair hearing.
· Recommend continuing the matter.
This has to be evaluated by staff if there is
Stamson:
· Agreed with Criego and Lemke's gist, the house and driveway is going to be over the
30% impervious surface.
· Take the home and add a reasonable size driveway.
· The sidewalks can come into compliance.
· The big question is the patio. The engineer says it is an integral part, but the home
was built without the patio. If the patio was needed to support the home it should
have been built at the time.
· No problem allowing impervious surface for the home and a reasonable driveway.
Question the patio.
Vonhof:
· Question taking the word of a person who according to the applicant, said he didn't
know he needed a permit. And this is the person that we are relying on to say, "Yes,
this needs lateral support"? They didn't even pull a City permit for doing the work.
Stamson:
· A letter simply from a concrete company hardly implies it was done by an engineer.
· I've laid concrete and you wouldn't want to ask me about structural support.
Atwood:
· The Staff Report points out the additions to the impervious surface such as the metal
frame for the tarp boat shelter is not included in the calculations. Reference to the
docks and boat lifts the DNR had addressed - the applicant was above and beyond
what was allowed.
· Horsman agreed. Those were conditions that changed from the last time the property
was inspected. They were not taken into account. They are not even on the survey.
The survey will have to be revised and come up with a proposal that works for the
Planning Commission.
· Question on enforcing this infiltration. I've been out there twice, how many times
will it take to correct this problem for good?
· This should be included in the Motion to continue.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes'dVlN091001 .doc 13
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2001
Criego:
· Coming back to this committee on a once a month exercise is not the way to solve the
problem. Set an impervious surface percentage and let staff enforce.
Stamson:
Agreed. Define the impervious surface number for the house and the driveway
There was a brief discussion on the Motion.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY LEMKE, TO RECOMMEND ALLOWING A
VARIANCE THAT IS 40% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND THAT THE APPLICANT
ACHIEVE THAT PERCENTAGE WITH THE APPROVAL OF STAFF WITH THE
CONDITION HE ELIMINATES THE CANOPY AND DOCKAGE AS
RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
Discussion:
Stamson:
· Questioned Horsman on the driveway percentage achieved by staff. Horsman said he
remembered around 18 feet to 20 feet at the property line eliminating over half the
driveway.
· What percentage is the home and cut down driveway? Kansier responded it would be
37%.
· 40% is too much.
· The patio is the problem. The Commission does not have enough detail.
Lemke:
· Shared concern regarding a letter from a contractor that doesn't know he needs a
permit.
· Did not want to see dirt and the wall in the lake next spring because the patio was
removed.
Stamson and Atwood:
· The applicant created the problem.
· The applicant went ahead and did this without the permits.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Criego and Lemke, nays by Vonhof, Stamson and Atwood.
MOTION FAILS.
Discussion:
Vonhof:
· The hardship criteria are not met in any case.
· Will not support.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesXMN091001 .doc 14
Planning Commission Minutes
September 1 O, 2001
Stamson:
· What is staff's take on the driveway? The applicant added a driveway without going
over the 30%. Ordinance requires a paved driveway. Horsman responded variances
are allowed.
· Allow a home and driveway at 37%. That is reasonable. It is a code issue.
· If the applicant came in beforehand and asked for a driveway variance, it probably
would have been granted. The patio and sidewalk would not have been allowed.
Criego:
Agreed with Stamson on allowing the house and driveway, the only difference is on
percentage.
Vonhof:
· The other issue is the lake side.
This Commission should forward to City Council a
recommendation tonight. The applicant can appeal.
The variance hardship criteria are not met. It is difficult to pick a number out for the
impervious surface.
Agreed with Criego, the applicant has to resolve this problem.
Prior to 1995 the lot did not have that extra concrete on it. The applicant created the
problem.
Criego:
· The other option is to deny the request.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, DIRECTING STAFF TO
PREPARE A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE HOME PLUS THE DRIVEWAY AT
WHATEVER PERCENTAGE STAFF DEEMS APPROPRIATE WITH THE
CONDITION ANY IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ABOVE THE 30% BE DEVOTED TO
THE INSTALLATION OF THE DRIVEWAY.
Lemke:
· Better off denying the request and let the applicant appeal. This is only going to
delay an appeal.
Vonhof:
Go back to the question - Are the hardship criteria met? Either they are met or not.
Stamson and Atwood agreed to amend the Motion as follows:
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO STATE THE COMMISSION
FINDS THE HARDSHIP CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET FOR A HOME AND A
REASONABLE DRIVEWAY AT 36% IMPERVOUS SURFACE WITH THE
CONDITION THE ADDITIONAL 6% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE PERCENTAGE BE
USED FOR THE DRIVEWAY; AND THE REMAINDER OF THE CONCRETE ON
THE PROPERTY BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminute s'xMN091001 .doc 1 5
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2001
The Staff is directed to prepare a Resolution granting the variance as stated above.
Vote taken indicated ayes by Stamson, Atwood and Lemke, nays by Vonhof and Criego.
MOTION CARRIED.
5. Old Business:
A. Case File//01-068 Lawrence Baird Variance Resolution.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented Resolutions 01-012PC and 01-014PC as
directed by the Planning Commission's at their August 27, 2001, meeting.
Horsman noted the existing Exhibit is the original submitted with the variance application
and therefore does not fit the recommended side yard variance.
Stamson:
· Questioned staff's knowledge of the applicant's deck being too large. Horsman said
he looked up the permit and there were no designs on file. It was an approved deck.
· Heard second hand information the deck was built too large and mitigated down to
what it is now. Is there any information? Horsman said that information was not
with the permit.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 01-
012PC.
Stamson stated this is the decision of the Planning Commission based on the information
they received.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. Vonhof abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01-
014PC WITH THE REVISED PLAN.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. Vonhof abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
Applicant Larry Baird spoke that his understanding at the meeting was that a compromise
had been reached so the 3.9 foot setback would be allowed to the 5 foot setback and 14.5
feet long.
Criego responded that was correct. The intent was to keep the 14.5 feet.
Horsman said as long as they mitigate. The applicant's problem was with the impervious
surface.
There was a brief discussion on the interpretation of the Resolution.
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutes\MN091001 .doc 16
Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2001
MOTION AMENDMENT BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO AMEND
RESOLUTION 01-014PC ELIMINATING THE REFERENCE OF A 5 X 8 FOOT
VESTIBULE IN CONDTIONS 1 AND 2. THE APPLICANT MUST MITIGATE THE
EFFECT OF THE VESTIBULE BY REMOVING THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE
FROM EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all.
6. New Business:
7.
Vonhofabstained. MOTION CARRIED.
Announcements and Correspondence:
Stamson suggested the Commission read the rain barrel information submitted by Bryce
Huemoeller and discuss at the next meeting.
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
Jane Kansier
Planning Coordinator
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\01 files\01 plancomm\01 pcminutesWIN091001 .doc 17